Created by Kym Buchanan | http://KymBuchanan.org | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
(I wrote this in November 2002, to stimulate dialog with faculty at various doctoral programs.)
I propose creating and testing a computer game to prove that it can support student learning more effectively than traditional alternatives. I want to blend this proposal with the ongoing research of a graduate program. I discuss teaching using games, my background, and ideas for creating my game. I emphasize the value of role-playing and the power of co-opting technology students already play with.
Educators can co-opt the technology students already play with to increase engagement and learning. I propose creating and testing a computer game that supports and enriches specific curriculum, to prove that such games can be entertaining and educational. I hypothesize that for certain curriculum a computer game can support student learning more effectively than traditional alternatives.
Using games to teach is not a new approach. However, many educators and education stakeholders continue to view computer games only as a recreation or distraction. (Game-research.com) Simultaneously, computer and video games are becoming the leading entertainment industry; game sales compete with or exceed movie box office receipts. (Smith, J.H., Myths; Takahashi, 2002) Schools can shut them out or use their potential. With my game, I will seek rigorous proof of increased engagement and improved learning.
While I'm an experienced educator and avid gamer, I'm a novice to the academic study of games. This proposal is primarily based on my observations and my background in education. I am pursuing a PhD because I want to study games and the relevant literature, and to contribute in my own way. I want to blend this proposal with the ongoing research of a graduate program. Eventually, I hope to find a position in a college of education, to merge my research interests and love of teaching. I have new ideas for connecting teaching and gaming, and some original ideas for educational games.
In this proposal, I will examine teaching using computer games, including advantages, the value of role-playing, and limitations. I will discuss my background, including my constructivist pedagogy, co-opting technology, and my love of gaming. I will finish by sharing some ideas for creating my game, including technical implementation, possible gameplay, and integrating curriculum.
In general, games are a powerful tool for teaching, as evidenced by their ubiquity and diversity. Spelling bees and mock quiz shows are two widespread, low-tech examples. But while schools have computers and the Internet, computer games are largely perceived as a distraction rather than an asset.
The computer game industry has largely failed to notice or effectively attract the education market. That's forgivable, since the purpose of most computer games is entertainment for profit. There are sterling exceptions: some deliberate, some serendipitous. Among the great “edutainment” games are the Oregon Trail Game and the Carmen Sandiego series. Other games don't try to teach, but nevertheless have educational potential: for example, SimCity and Civilization.
School reforms like block scheduling, smaller learning communities, and career-related learning offer new reasons and opportunities to evaluate teaching using computer games. In preparing students as media-literate, global citizens while addressing equity issues, schools can't afford to overlook any possible advantage.
Effective edutainment (or “play-and-learn”) was once perceived as inevitable and near-at-hand. Recent literature is more realistic. I agree with Jonas Heide Smith, that games can only be great learning tools if we prove that games are better than alternatives. (Smith, J.H., 2002) Games aren't a substitute for teachers, but they can help where they excel over other tools.
Gonzalo Frasca writes: “The current state of videogame research is mainly driven by scholars who try to explain computer games through previously existing media.” (Frasca, What is) My classroom experience has made me more pragmatic. I look to my students' interests to engage them. Most of my students either play games, or are familiar with the most popular games and gameplay. Even as we try to understand computer games in the abstract, my students have embraced them in their daily lives. So I'm proposing very applied research, to demonstrate the extant advantages of computer games.
Computer games have many advantages. They are interactive, using common content to create a relatively personalized experience for each player. They are didactic by nature, teaching then assessing skills and knowledge. Good games begin with easy, tutorial gameplay, followed by ever-increasing challenges. Computer games can foster many skills, including reading, spelling, vocabulary, observation, logical thinking, planning, problem solving, and making and reading maps. (Creative Teaching)
Computer games encourage risk-taking in a safe environment. Sherry Turkle, after observing children playing with technology, notes that children are bold experimenters. "They just pick it up and start playing. The computer culture rewards this type of tinkering, this type of cognitive risk-taking. I call it the triumph of tinkering." (Pham, 1999)
Computer games can track and report information about the player, creating clear feedback for both students and teachers. Games can adjust to a player's skills and knowledge. Games can randomly draw on curriculum, much like computerized testing.
Most students won't grow up to create games. The computer game industry is thick with applicants and thin on jobs. But the planning, artistry, and technology behind computer games spans dozens of fields: management, finance, art, music, sound, acting, history, writing, programming, marketing, and more. As with studying film or commercial athletics, students can find meaningful careers through playing and studying games. At least one school is already integrating computer games into its curriculum. (Branigan, 2002)
Most games have finite content. The creators invest long amounts of time, for relatively short gameplay. Yet the technology transmits the same content to any and all players, making the creation worthwhile. Technology can extend this power, and game duration, by leveraging the power of online virtual spaces. Spaces like Tapped In, Lingua MOO, and MOOSE Crossing are "increasingly recognized for their value as an educational tool" for virtual classes and similar activities. (Haynes & Holmevik, 1998) Their origins and enduring appeal to most users is the potential for role-playing.
Children like to hear stories about themselves and other children. Stories are essential to teaching. History comes alive through people and primary sources. Math questions are cast as sentence problems. Language arts studies the fundamental ideas of narrative and conflict. These and other disciplines use characters and stories to hold students' attention and convey meaningful learning. Role-playing creates stories about ourselves, and the settings and themes need not be pure fiction.
Role-playing is part of all social interaction both real and imaginary, as we choose how to express ourselves to other people. Role-playing games explicitly challenge players to create intriguing characters and interactions. Through their imaginary characters, players learn useful skills for real life, including tact, empathy, expression/communication, management, collaboration, and conflict resolution. Role-playing teaches these and other skills in ways alternative tools can't. Law students participate in mock trials, while astronauts train in sophisticated simulations.
Many educators use low-tech role-playing to teach. I used a role-playing strike simulation to teach labor issues and history (The Power in Our Hands). Computer games take role-playing to new levels, while making it accessible to anyone with a computer and a modem. The success of Ultima Online and EverQuest and the frenetic anticipation of The Sims Online typify the appeal of role-playing. (Keighley, Endless)
Many or all of the characters in multiplayer role-playing computer games are controlled by humans, leading to unique, memorable stories. Selmer Bringsjord believes that computer games have yet to deliver great stories, since many "great stories come to be remembered in terms of great characters." (Bringsjord, 2001) I agree that computer-controlled characters are often stilted or predictable, with finite conversation trees. Researchers like Janet Murray are seeking the alternative: "interactive characters who can carry on a conversation" spontaneously. (Murray, Character Maker 4.3: About) So for now, human-controlled characters are the best way to foster entertaining stories. The players believe there are great stories happening now, as evidenced by their continued participation. And in greatness lies celebrity. Through role-playing, anyone can become a star in a microcosm, the hero (or anti-hero) of his own story.
This is the greatest advantage of role-playing: giving the player power over his identity. As I high school teacher, I was concerned with how adolescents struggle to develop their identities and self worth. Many adolescents turn to role-playing to explore and experiment. Multiplayer games create alternative social structures and interpersonal relationships, where players have control over their identities (including apparent ethnicity, gender, and age). Torill Mortensen, in her study multiplayer games, explains that role-playing in persistent online worlds is like being immersed in endless participatory theater. (Mortensen, 2002) And there are no permanent winners or losers in role-playing games. Some players even seek to “lose,” for the experience and self-discovery. (Mortensen, 2002) Thus, role-playing can support teaching emotional intelligence (i.e. Gardner's interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences).
For all their advantages, computer games have some limitations in education. Foremost, they are only possible where students have access to reliable computers. Some schools don't have enough money to give every student a textbook; expensive, questionable technology is difficult to justify. (Weaver, 2002)
Games can misrepresent the intrinsic value of education. I agree with Erik Trimble:
[T]he more we try to package learning as entertainment, the less we seem to emphasize that learning for its own sake is fun and interesting. And we also seem to be reinforcing the concept that it has to be FUN in order to be worth doing. Sadly, the world doesn't operate this way, and I think we're doing a great disservice to kids if we get them thinking that learning has to be somehow immediately entertaining. (Trimble, 2002)
Indeed, games can be fun without being significantly educational. And it's difficult to create gameplay for some curricula. Students need to understand that a playing a game is not an alternative to hard work and studying.
Computer games can be frustrating, when the only solution to a puzzle is not clear. Games can be repetitive; like all media, they are limited by the creativity and wit of the creators. (Role-playing mitigates this limitation, with human-controlled characters and human game masters.) Games can't perfectly measure skill and knowledge, since any application in a game is inherently artificial. And games may not spot cheating.
Effective teaching requires face-to-face instruction, personalization, and meaningful classroom time. Computer games can't replace caring professionals. But we are beginning to see the power of human contact in technology. Where the Web matured into a virtual library, new Internet technologies have created more dynamic social spaces. Look to the burgeoning popularity of chat, instant messaging, Webcams, multiplayer computer games, and other media. Virtual clubs and imaginary worlds are the new hang-out for students, who don't care that others misperceive these spaces as cold and impersonal. They live part of their lives through online role-playing, with various levels of fiction. We should co-opt the technology students already play with. I'll explain why I want to do this, then finish by discussing my plan.
Teaching using games combines my two areas of greatest passion and expertise. I taught high school for three years, and I'm a research specialist for an education laboratory. I have played computer games for most of my life. I study what makes a game fun and educational. I can create an engrossing game that supports meaningful curriculum.
I'm a constructivist and a behaviorist. With this pedagogy, I see games as a tremendous asset for teaching.
I believe students learn best when we equip them with information, models, and tools, then challenge them with high-level thinking questions. Such questions require them to assemble and prove their own theories. So I ask 'Why?' a lot; the thinking and discussion processes are more important than the answers. Games allow students to predict and experiment; games are interactive and dynamic.
As a behaviorist, I believe in 'telegraphing' high expectations, and 'catching them being good.' I emphasize goal-reward models, the power of self-efficacy beliefs on self improvement (e.g. learning), and shaping. (e.g. Your brain is like a muscle. Each idea is a work-out. You get smarter over time.) I believe that we remember best what matters most, so I urge my students to connect curricula with their interests and background. The structure and feedback of games are ideal for conditioning desirable behavior. I co-opt the reward-response of their private interests to foster engagement in curricula.
Many young people are avid technology consumers. When a new technology captures a student's attention and imagination, schools have a choice. Educators can try to exclude the technology from learning. Or they can co-opt the technology, connecting it to meaningful curriculum.
Often, the primary purposes of consumer technologies are recreation and entertainment, so not every technology is suitable for co-opting. Similarly, not all curricula can be targeted with co-opting.
The World Wide Web is a good example of technology co-opted for education. Originally, the Web was esoteric, with many sites purely for entertainment or business. But as the technology matured, the Web become a useful information resource: a veritable global library. Legitimate organizations like universities and government agencies add meaningful content to the resource. Many teachers use the Web as an essential part of their curricula. It still has the potential to distract, but schools see the greater advantages of co-opting.
Computer games typically use fictional characters, settings, stories, and ideas. Yet these fictions are often more visceral to my students than real-world knowledge. They know or recognize Mario, Pikachu, Solid Snake, and "the guy from Grand Theft Auto." They eagerly learn imaginary histories and sciences (e.g. magic systems). I want to co-opt games to teach more meaningful curricula.
Co-opting is a powerful idea. The US Army created a free computer game as a recruiting tool: America's Army draws on the realities of military training and duty. A Georgia school co-opted the PlayStation video game console for edutainment. (Walton, 2002) And a Los Angeles school co-opted Dance Dance Revolution arcade game machines for physical education. Coach Chad Fenwick explains: "The key is to get them interested... It's what it's all about." (Smith, T., 2002)
Like the Web or Dance Dance Revolution, computer games can be co-opted for education. They can support objectives more cerebral than physical fitness (or button mashing). The best games require creativity, logic, intuition, memory, awareness, focus, patience, and daring. I value these traits, and hone them by playing games.
Veteran players can list their favorite games: works of art, challenge, storytelling, and triumph. (My short list includes Civilization, System Shock, and Kohan.) I never been fascinated by gratuitous violence, nor am I captivated by games that demand only reflexes. Unfortunately, computer games are often judged by the most controversial products, not the highest quality. I can do better than the loud and the stupid. I want to create games that fit with the virtuous work of teaching. I want to reach students in ways traditional teaching can't.
I want to create an online game that co-opts some of the gameplay elements of popular mainstream role-playing games, to teach and support certain curricula in an immersive, persistent, multiplayer, role-playing world.
I have limited programming and artistic skills. If necessary, I could construct a simple game. But my research will demand a lot from this game. While I'm not planning to compete with commercial software, in quality or scale, I am proposing a fairly sophisticated project. I plan to take computer science classes to improve my existing programming and design skills, so I'm especially interested in graduate programs and universities that support this interdisciplinary approach. I will also need help in coding and implementation.
Fortunately, the computer game industry attracts many and employs few. I will request department funds and seek grants, to contract the extra technical help I need. There are plenty of college students looking to create games for their academic or professional credentials. The computer game community has a thriving “garage publishing” and mod community, with resources and expertise I may be able to use. (Keighley, Game development) The community is also eager to build stronger ties with academia, because research like mine "supports analysis and examination of the medium in a way the purely commercial industry has trouble with, providing space for formal and conceptual experimentation that is hard to justify in the market-driven world of shipping titles." (GDC, Academic Summit)
Finally, with my years of experience as a gamer, game designer, and storyteller, I have more than a few friends who want to help with this project.
I plan to systematically explore the advantages of existing technology and platforms to find tools and ideas to co-opt. My game will only need to be sophisticated enough to test my hypothesis of improved engagement and learning. As other researchers observed with AquaMOOSE?, this kind of game "clearly cannot compete" with commercial software in scope and polish. (Elliot, Adams, & Bruckman, 2002)
My game will be open source software. I want any educator to be able to share and customize the software. The open source model encourages collaboration with anyone interested in contributing, which taps a pool of potential volunteers. The content I create will endure as technology advances; it won't be locked into aging software. This fits with the “Open CourseWare” movement. (Richards, 2001)
My game may start as a game-making toolkit. I want to demonstrate teaching using games for a variety of curricula, so it may be more efficient to create universal tools, then build specific games or mini-games. Some tools are already pioneering this area (e.g. MUDs, Stagecast, Blitz Basic).
My game will make reflex demands optional. In other words, a student will have the choice to play in a mode that doesn't demand fast reflexes. In general, the content will be accessible to more students, regardless of reflexes, special needs, etc.
I will prioritize speed and reliability over graphics, to meet the realistic system requirements. Quality gameplay doesn't require state-of-art special effects. Where possible, I will use photographs and other artwork from the public domain. I'm strongly considering the artistic style of Paper Mario: two dimensional objects in a three dimensional world. This style would allow students to create and upload their own artwork. I'm also intrigued by limiting the use of color in the game (e.g. The Wizard of Oz, Schindler's List), to minimize creation time.
Sound may be minimal or non-existent. Sound design and implementation can be time-consuming. Good games don't need elaborate graphics or sound. But as a teacher I've always tried to use multimedia to engage and instruct, and I want my game to model good teaching. Certain curricula need graphics and/or sound. I carefully weigh the importance of graphics and sound when I survey existing and possible technology.
My game will be designed for schools. For example, it will create records of participation for teachers. Teachers will be able to easily access the game's content, for use in the classroom. Likewise, teachers will be able to import classroom content to the game. If my game includes banks of questions and answers, teachers will be able to cut-and-paste from those banks to create printed tests. The software only needs smart design, not extra work, to offer such features (e.g. using a standard database format for question-and-answer banks).
There is no shortage of bad games. I will create a good game, without relying on flashy technology or cloned gameplay.
Many educational games have tried to graft content onto entertaining gameplay. For example, the game may be a platformer like Super Mario Brothers, but use content-specific icons. Such games may enhance learning, but I prefer the higher-stakes approach: integrating the content with the gameplay. I call this organic design: the player must master the content to excel in the gameplay. As a result, the player retains more of the learning.
Keyboarding or “typing tutorial” games offer strong examples of organic education games, because they're often able to blend successful mainstream gameplay with authentic learning. Put simply, any game requires pushing buttons, and keyboarding requires pushing the right buttons. In Mario Teaching Typing or Typing the House of the Dead we find the same stories, gameplay, and artwork as their mainstream progenitors (i.e. Super Mario Brothers, The House of the Dead). Keyboarding skills are seamlessly and continuously integral to the gameplay.
Keyboarding is a mechanical skill, like a reflex, so it's relatively easy to integrate with mainstream games. Such games use the most developed and compelling gameplay models, and typically reward reflexes more than thinking. To prove my hypothesis, my game must help students learn better, regardless of mechanical skill. In other words, games designed to teach thinking should demand thinking. Demand on reflexes should forgiving or non-existent. I will expect players to think more and button mash less. I may include reflex-based gameplay, but my game will not depend on it.
I discussed the value of role-playing because it will be a critical part of my game. Players are more invested in a game when they have unique characters with unique motivations. I have experience designing and administering MUDs, and I'm currently intrigued by the educational value of collaborative spaces like MOOs and Wikis. Much like the MMORPGs, I plan to blend text communication with a graphical environment.
(MUD: Multiple User Dimension. MOO: MUD, Object Oriented. MUDs and MOOs are typically text-based game without graphics. MMORPG: Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.)
Beyond these broad strokes, I'm not committed to specific gameplay components. The thinking and learning I expect from players is well-served by role-playing. I will choose additional components using four criteria: the technical limitations of the project, games I admire, successful edutainment games, and the actual curricula the collaborating teacher(s) wants to reinforce.
Computer games can support and enrich many curricula. Based on my teaching background and interests, there are several I might choose from.
Health and self-awareness could be supported in a computer game. For example, concepts like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are fundamental to gameplay; you can't search for treasure if you're dying from a monster bite. Gardner's 7 Intelligences could be enriched; quality stat-based games reward characters with balanced attributes and skills. Formal ethics could be modeled in a game, in several allegorical societies inspired by Aristotle, Mill, and Kant. Simulations are useful in a variety of disciplines, including economics, ecology, and chemistry.
Group dynamics is the most exciting curriculum I can imagine modeling. I've tried to teach this curriculum in a variety of ways, but never in an immersive role-playing setting. A game could teach the value of forming and norming, the difference between task and maintenance roles, the qualities of effective leadership, and more.
Ultimately, I will choose curricula with a collaborating classroom teacher(s). I plan to work closely with at least one classroom teacher, to prove student learning in a real setting. I will couch this project in contemporary theories, but as a former classroom teacher, my primary interest is imminent, broad application.
I will try prove that computer games can enhance learning better than traditional or low-tech tools, by increasing engagement and retention. Here is a rough plan of my methodology.
I will collaborate with a classroom teacher(s), to prepare several units for multiple classes (e.g. different periods of the day). We will create content in the computer game to support and enrich the teaching objectives of each unit. We will prepare equivalent low-tech supplemental materials, duplicating the content as much as possible (e.g. using the same text and graphics). These materials may include study guides, worksheets, stories, etc. These low-tech materials will be hosted on a Web page.
Every class will study every unit during class time. Every class will spend in-class downtime in a computer lab. Each student will log in to a Web-based management program, so I can track how much each student uses the materials or spends time in the game. During each session, some students will have access to the game, while others will be directed to the low-tech materials. The students will be able to complete the materials on-screen and then print or email them, or print the materials and complete them by hand. Playing the game or completing the materials will be an in-class assignment.
Selection will be random, while trying to provide equal class time for all students over multiple units (e.g. accounting for absences). Every student will study a given unit, but some will use the game, and others will use the low-tech materials. All students will take the same unit assessments.
All students will have access to both the game and materials outside of class (e.g. at home) for all units. They will always have to log in through the management program.
Every student will study at least four units. I want them to experience the connections among the unit objective, materials, game, and unit assessments, at least twice.
I will archive all game activity, for my own research and to extend sound classroom management into the virtual space. Since the game content will mirror the low-tech materials wherever possible, I will be able to compare some in-game behavior with answers in the materials. (e.g. Solving to an in-game puzzle may be comparable to completing a corresponding worksheet.)
I believe when students have access to the game, they will perform significantly better on the unit assessments. They will perform better relative to their low-tech peers on the same unit. They will perform better relative to their own past or future performance on low-tech units. Finally, they will demonstrate more engagement with the curriculum when they have access to the game. Outside of class, students will voluntarily spend more time playing. They will use the game more than they or their peers use the low-tech materials.
With this research, I will try to show that computer games can be co-opted to increase engagement and learning. I have some exciting ideas for teaching with games. I want to base my studies and future leadership in higher education on this kind of research and technical assistance. Computer games have limited educational value, but far more value than many educators realize. I will try to deliver proof to support that message.
Branigan, C. (2002, November 1). Students to design virtual-reality games. Eschool news. Retrieved November 5, 2002, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=4042
Bringsjord, S. (2001, July). Is it possible to build dramatically compelling interactive digital entertainment (in the form, e.g., of computer games)? Game studies. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from http://gamestudies.org/0101/bringsjord/index.html
Elliot, J.; Adams, L.; & Bruckman, A. (2002, October). No magic bullet: 3D video games in education.) Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/aquamoose-icls02.pdf
Creative Teaching. (n.d.). Thinking and learning skills potentially developed by playing some simulation/adventure/role-playing video games. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.creativeteachingsite.com/videogames.htm
Frasca, G. (n.d.). What is ludology? Ludology.org. Retrieved October 29, 2002, from http://www.ludology.com/
Game-research.com. (n.d.). Education. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from http://www.game-research.com/education.asp
GDC: Game Developers Conference 2003. (n.d.). Academic summit. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.gdconf.com/conference/academicsummit.htm
Haynes, C. & Holmevik, J.R. (1998). Research and writing projects. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://lingua.utdallas.edu/jan/research.html
Keighley, G. (2002, November). The endless hours of The Sims Online. GameSpot. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/simsonline/index.html
Keighley, G. (2002, October). Game development à la mod. Business 2.0. Retrieved November 7, 2002, from http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,43489,FF.html
Mortensen, T. (2002, July). Playing with players. Game studies. Retrieved November 7, 2002, from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/mortensen/
Murray, J. (n.d.) Character Maker 4.2: About. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://laci.lcc.gatech.edu/cmaker/
Pham, A. (1999, February 24). The human side of the screen. The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/bosglobe.html
Richards, P. (2001, April 4). MIT to make nearly all course materials available free on the World Wide Web. MIT news. Retrieved November 7, 2002, from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/ocw.html
Smith, J.H. (2002, September 9). The 6 myths of computer gaming. Game research. Retrieved November 6, 2002 from http://www.game-research.com/art_myths_of_gaming.asp
Smith, T. (2002, June 14). Video game that's good for you. CBS news. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/13/earlyshow/contributors/tracysmith/main512169.shtml
Takahashi, D. (2002, October 2). Video-game industry sees possible slowing. Mercury news. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/personal_technology/4201854.htm
Trimble, E. (2002, September 22). Personal communication, used with permission. Retrieved November 19, 2002, from http://slashdot.org/ article.pl?sid=02/09/21/2232257&mode=thread&tid=146
Walton, M. (2002, September 23). Kids use PlayStation for high-tech homework. CNN.com. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/fun.games/09/21/playstationhomework/
Weaver, R. (2002, October 23). Quoted in: Weekly wrap-up. Education technology news. Page 173.
Created by Kym Buchanan | http://KymBuchanan.org | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.